pointed commentary on current affairs in Jamaica and the Caribbean

Of course not, traditionalists say. How can that be news? Well, it certainly doesn’t fit into the politics-economy-crime triumvirate with which we like to bombard our listeners and viewers. Forget the fact that people are interested in a much wider range of issues such as health, diet and nutrition, consumer affairs, and yes, entertainment.

God forbid we cover and talk about what people are interested in. No, to make the bulletin, it must be about the Net International Reserves, the International Monetary Fund, five people gunned down somewhere or a cass-cass in one of the political parties (which many people give not one hoot about – I actually think that most of the people interested in the happenings within the political parties are the politicians, their die hard supporters and we reporters).

I’m not saying Yendi’s pregnancy should have led the newscast. Please. But most major newscasts entirely ignore anything in the entertainment arena which doesn’t involve ground-breakings and speeches by government Ministers.

Many of us in media have very straight-laced, hide-bound and yes, out-of-date

notions about what constitutes the “news” and what we should be talking about on current affairs programmes. The issues of interest to the lives of most people are often ignored.

Case in point – I once had a huge argument in the newsroom because I wanted to interview the author of a book about marriage and divorce from a Christian perspective. The book in question is called “The Man I Married is Not My Husband, the Woman I Married is Not My Wife.” It was written by a priest who spent years doing marriage counselling. My colleagues couldn’t see how that issue was relevant to a current affairs discussion programme. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, it’s relevant to people’s lives. By definition for me, that makes it current.

(Disclosure: I have a personal connection with the author. Having said that, the book is a fascinating read, and it’s in local bookstores. Go look for it! )

“Cultural and creative industries represent one of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy, representing up to 7% of the world’s GDP with growth forecast at 10% per annum, driven in part by the convergence of media and the digital economy.”

The document further states:

“…while Jamaican music accounts for an estimated 3% of world music sales, amounting to US$1 billion in 2003, the country itself received only 25% of this sum or some US$250 million.”

Tell me, how is anything to do with an industry like that NOT big news?

Wikimedia load spike on June 25, 2009, following news of Michael Jackson’s death (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Beeb, the BBC, surely one of the most conservative news-gathering organisations in the world, led several newscasts with the death of Michael Jackson, and covered his doctor’s trial extensively. Were there no wars or famines anywhere else in the world? Yes, but on the day Michael Jackson died, no one (slight exaggeration perhaps!) was interested in anything else. There was no bigger story. The BBC, and everybody else, HAD to acknowledge that.

60 Minutes is one of the most respected news magazine programmes in the world. They cover entertainment issues and interview celebrities. ALL THE TIME. It is their treatment of the issues that sets them apart from the National Enquirer. Examples of recent stories they’ve dealt with – interviews with Adele and young country star Taylor Swift.

People no longer have to wait for RJR and JBC, once the only game in town, to deliver the news we want to give them, when we want to give it to them. No, the advance of technology has democratized media, and the public can now get, and indeed demands, real-time news delivery on issues in which they are passionately interested. Not all of us understand that yet.

Image via CrunchBase

Many reporters – and people who don’t participate – see social media sites like Facebook and Twitter as a waste of time. Can you waste hours on Twitter and FB? Of course. But with 800 million active users on Facebook and 500 million users on Twitter, are we really going to ignore the power of those new media? That is where people are talking to each other, and sharing information. That is where you can gauge WHAT people are talking to each other about, especially in the case of Twitter.

Which takes us back to Yendi. She chose to announce her pregnancy on FB.The news spread quickly, and the newspapers reported it on their websites. Was that a bad decision? Was that violating the standards of journalism? Let’s go back to the basics of journalism. What are the elements of a story? Who, what, where, when, why and how. The issue here is the “who.”

I checked her social media stats. Yendi has over 15,000 followers on Twitter, and over 144,000 likes on FB. Granted she’s still a baby compared to Lady Gaga who has over 23,000,000 followers on Twitter and over 50,000,000 likes on FB. Still, Yendi’s numbers are nothing to sneeze at.

Image via CrunchBase

So there is a sizeable community of people interested in her and in news about her. So, yes, whether I personally care anything about Yendi or not, any news editor and producer must understand that stories about her are legitimate news stories.

Now, news of her pregnancy would normally be slotted into the entertainment news segments. But the reaction to the announcement was not normal. The explosion of comment led to the issue “trending” on Twitter, meaning it was one of the top issues being discussed. That is huge, and THAT catapulted the story out of the entertainment news niche.

A range of issues has emerged from the discussions and chatter – the concern about people seen as role models having children out of wedlock, the color issue, the class issue, the Rasta issue and more. There are many issues that can be treated in a thoughtful way, that would take the discussion beyond veranda suss and still hold the interest of people interested in the story.

Everywhere I went, this was what people were discussing. They were reading the posts on the internet and watching Yendi’s interview. Make sure you understand that even the people saying everybody should leave Yendi alone WERE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE STORY!

Should we ignore the clear interest in this issue and focus exclusively on the Net International Reserves et al? Sure , we can do that. But don’t be surprised if one day we wake up to find that we are talking to nobody but ourselves.

22 thoughts on “Is the Yendi Story “News?””

As one of the persons who said “leave Yendi alone” let me be clear that I do agree that her story is news, no doubts there. My issue is and continues to be people seeking to impose their own judgement on her and her man and pregnancy by being mean! Sex out of wedlock, baby out of wedlock, blah blah, it happens, most of us are products of said unions. Now did Yendi set up herself by assuming a place of “role model” perhaps but does that give anyone the right to be mean in their criticisms, I think not! Hey DJ thanks for those quotes on cultural industries you know how close that issue is to my heart. Finally, everyone reserves to right to make decisions that’s best for them and their families. I wish her and Chyno all the best as they take on this awesome responsibility called parenting, worse parenting in the public eye. Another thought provoking piece Mrs. Miller!

Thanks as always, You know, I was criticised because I said on FB that I wished they would stop giving to the cultural portfolio to a woman. People thought I was saying I thought the sector was unimportant. I don’t think that at all. I do think that despite the chat, our governments have not treated the sector seriously and have never seen it as a major Ministry. We in the media also need to understand its power and reach and adjust our coverage accordingly.

Yes, “entertainment” can be news, I agree. So long as there is a good mix, I have no problem with it. Having said that, personally I couldn’t care less about “celebrities” and always switch over when the “entertainment news” comes on TVJ. But that’s my personal thing! But this story in particular does raise very topical issues that are worth further exploration. By the way, I spend a lot of time on social media and (perhaps for that reason!) I have got several pieces of breaking news that way, before they were on “traditional” news. And traditional newspapers etc will never be able to keep up with that – they are already starting to print and read out on air comments on Facebook and Twitter, which I find a bit sad!

There are about 7 news values that determine the ‘newsworthiness’ of a story or that helps Editors to determine what to cover as news. These are 1. Proximity. 2. Significance/Relevance. 4. Prominence. 5. Human Interest. 6. Conflict. 7. Unusualness.

The Yendi story satisfies #4. She is, for all intents and purposes a celebrity – prominent individual in our Jamaican community. So it is news. Yet the particular story is only ‘soft’ news. Should we give attention to soft news? I would say depends on where in the paper you put it. Front page – that would be absolutely scandalous; yet those whose aim is to sell newspapers will trump a political story for a soft news story because the ‘business model’ of the media industry and the revenue agenda would be chief determinant in this scenario.

PS: 60 minutes remains the only current affairs to make a profit. It does so by mixing hard news with soft news. Read Ben Bagdikian’s insightful interview on this phenomenon.

There are about 7 news values that determine the ‘newsworthiness’ of a story or that helps Editors to determine what to cover as news. These are
1. Proximity.
2. Significance
3. Relevance.
4. Prominence.
5. Human Interest.
6. Conflict.
7. Unusualness.

The Yendi story satisfies #4. She is, for all intents and purposes a celebrity – prominent individual in our Jamaican community. So it is news. Yet the particular story is only ‘soft’ news. Should we give attention to soft news? I would say depends on where in the paper you put it. Front page – that would be absolutely scandalous; yet those whose aim is to sell newspapers will trump a political story for a soft news story because the ‘business model’ of the media industry and the revenue agenda would be chief determinant in this scenario.

PS: 60 minutes remains the only current affairs show to make a profit. It does so through hardcore investigative journalism as well as soft news stories. The latter cannot be escaped in the business model of running news organisations.

Thanks for the comment Dr. Hume! You are, of course right about most of the factors you cite but I think you are wrong when you say the only criterion the Yendi story satisfies is no. 4 – Prominence.

The story satisfies no. 1 – proximity – she is a celebrity, but she is ours, she is Jamaican, we all watched her become runner-up in Miss Universe and many people have been following her career. People feel close to her.

It also satisfies no. 5 – human interest.
It is also unusual, no. 7 – of course, not in the sense of a woman becoming pregnant for a man, but the surrounding circumstances, the announcement on FB, the reactions and huge response, combined to make the way this story unfolded unusual – that fueled the story still more.

Relevance – no. 3 – I don’t know who determines what is relevant – if people are interested in someone or something, news about that person or thing will always be relevant.

You didn’t list timeliness – again, she broke the news, the reactions started then she fueled it with the interview, and all this was being reported as it happened.

I agree you. Most news stories usually satisfy one or more of the stated criteria. I just felt prominence was the overriding one howeber. I knew I was missing one, LOL. I am not sure it satisfied the timeliness criteria though Dionnie. Timeliness is whether is the story would be happening within the last 24 hours and since she is pregnant now 4 months, then it doesn’t satisfy that for me. Significance and relevance is really the same in retrospect. Whether is it a significant event (as opposed to, say a political announcement or a new legislation) is moot.

I also depart from you about the unsualness of it. It is not unusual in my view. The unusualness criteria usually would those bizarre stories (man bites do etc). I dont know that the responses by folks is extraordinary. The rumour and gossip surrounding the pregnancy and whom its for may invite sensationalism and gossip but nothing out of the ordinary for a celebrity such as her.

Anyhow, very pleased to have this kind of discussion about Jamaican journalism. Let’s do so again soon! Love it! Keep posting! :))
.

Hume, It most certainly satisfied news value no.6 as well – conflict. The responses illustrated a conflict of values in the society. The country was clearly divided among those who thought the circumstances were no big deal and those who disapproved, and each side was vociferous about its position. That conflict matters, because each society (especially developing ones) must determine the value systems that will inform policies, laws, etc.

Unusual is also being defined too narrowly as a news value. It does not only address the sensational (dog bites man). It describes that which is unexpected. And the reactions have made it clear that Yendi was not expected to make the choices she did. If she was, there would not have been any heavy interest in her announcement or the aforementioned conflict.

Your argument about timeliness and the age of her pregnancy is also flawed. The stories of the intense reaction were carried within hours of the intense reaction. And it’s the reactions which made the story big. Also, if we’re discussing the pregnancy itself as a story (which it was for entertainment segments), then the age of the pregnancy doesn’t matter. It’s when the public discovers it, that it matters. The birth of former US presidential candidate John Edwards’ love child did not become news until well after the child was born.Should American media have ignored the story because they didn’t know about it as soon as his lover was pregnant? In cases when pregnancies are news, they do not become news when the parents become aware. They become news when the public does.

All journalism students will be familiar with your list of news values because it was developed to provide a means of helping media practitioners determine which stories will be of public interest. The closer an editor or journalist followed those principles, the more s/he was guaranteed public interest, which is the ultimate aim. It’s a shortcut to the right decision because naturally, editors cannot pick up the phone and call every potential news consumer everyday or conduct a focus group before choosing stories. So s/he unconsciously applies the news value test to stories everyday, hoping s/he made the right call. o The level of interest in her story will tell her whether s/he applied the principles well. Overtime, if a news source keeps making the wrong decisions, it will be penalised with low ratings in the market.

But here’s the clincher: in the age of social media when a story immediately goes viral, the public interest is already apparent! When there is already public interest, your system for determining public interest doesn’t need to be dissected because the end result (which the system was set up to determine) has already been achieved. It’s like working an equation backwards. You must get the same result or your inputs were wrong.

Very interesting! Conflict! Of course there is, otherwise it wouldn’t be going viral in such a big way – there would be nothing to discuss. And I do believe that the social media is helping (in a big way) to determine what DOES have the public’s interest.

Fascinating discussion guys. Keriann. I very much agree with your point about clincher and working the equation backwards. To add to that point I find that traditional media will have quite a challenge surviving if they are unable to acknowledge the facebooks, twitters and other social media fora of this world as legitimate sources of feedback about what’s important. And I make that point given the discussions we have had internally and otherwise about whether to carry the story and how to treat it and the point that seems to arise in the midst of that discussion all the time – that it’s not important because well, WE, don’t think it is…we being those who write the news….at that rate “we” may end up writing about things only “we” think important…..

@ Skilarchie. Your point would suggest that it is the public which sets the agenda and not the Editors. It is still an Editor’s obligation to determine news worthiness. The public via social media will always weigh in; some segments will create news which traditional media will have to log onto. Yet at the end of the day, social media can only engage subjects and offer commentary and opinion. They will not check facts and sources or investigate. They will not unearth stories. It is News Editors who still have the task of pushing news angles unto the public.

PS: A PAJ lyme is in order. Please – when I am in Jamaica; not when I am stuck overseas and oonu running races without me! LOL